Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#451

Post by Vt71fcAqt7 » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 3:38 PM UTC

Synaesthesia wrote: post #448

Vt71fcAqt7 wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>U.S. global monopoly on high tech products Right, using US companies such as Samsung, TSMC, Sony, MediaTek...

Apple, Intel, Microsoft, Facebook, Google …

Which patents do Facebook and Google use? Those companies are based on network effects and custom algorithms (not patented). I'll give you that Intel and AMD are coasting on their x86 patents. I'd add Qualcomm as well. Not sure about Apple and Microsoft. They are more based on copyright (ie. source code) although I may be wrong.

In any case this is a far cry from a "U.S. global monopoly on high tech products."

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#452

Post by voakbasda » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 3:45 PM UTC

this_was_posted wrote: post #419

pharmakom wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, Apple has better market access and product execution so isn’t it a good thing if they acquire innovative tech?

In the bigger picture this kind of behaviour would destroy the market for innovative tech. Why would anyone still invest in making something innovative if your work gets taken away from you the moment you become successful?

This sort of behavior has destroyed my incentive to innovate. I have had multiple patentable ideas stolen and patented by others. I’m just one guy and can’t afford the process, but a patent just gives me the right to sue someone that infringes. Which also would be leagues out of my budget. The result is that I no longer want to create anything of value, because it will just be stolen. This exceptional case only underscores that rule.

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#453

Post by freejazz » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 4:02 PM UTC

simondotau wrote: post #413

freejazz wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those are pro small time inventor, those are all benefits to big business and lower the friction of infringing, i.e. making it efficient. It turns patents into an after-the-fact licensing scheme, where businesses can infringe all they want until a small time inventor can muster the capital to actually enforce their own patents. Your response seems to indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic dynami…

Your line of argumentation seems specious. If you have evidence to show that making compliance more efficient encourages non-compliance, I'd like to see it. It seems to me that if a corporation is inclined to knowingly abuse a small inventor's patent, they'll do so regardless of how efficient the compliance process is. Perhaps I don't know the basic dynamics of patent litigation. You're an expert, could you enlighten…

>Perhaps I don't know the basic dynamics of patent litigation. You're an expert, could you enlighten me?

Yeah, FRAND is pro-big business. It removes the upper limit on damages, i.e. minimizes the risk a business faces by infringing, which therefore minimizes any incentive to license a patent. It also reduces the incentive for a patentee to enforce their patent, as it takes ~$2-3m to litigate against a company like Apple through trial (not even appeals). Because of the upfront costs to enforcement, any small-time inventor is going to need a financier to back their case.

>Your line of argumentation seems specious.

My argument seems specious? You keep saying compliance... compliance with what? you haven't even made an argument, you just associate a few buzzwords and say "thing bad". You haven't explained anyway how FRAND and "compliance" are pro-small time inventor.

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#454

Post by mort96 » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 4:11 PM UTC

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #449

mort96 wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, and that's my point! The individual who does the invention gets a normal salary which they would've gotten anywhere doing anything (or, at best, a slightly higher salary than others doing similar work), and the people who reap the reward are the shareholders and executives.

But if none of the workers produce innovative work that the firm can patent, then the firm might fail and > the individual who does the invention gets a normal salary which they would've gotten anywhere doing anything may no longer be true.

Frankly, I have no idea what your point is. Clearly patents aren't enriching the inventor of the thing being patented, and that's that.

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#455

Post by mort96 » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 4:12 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #441

mort96 wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't rotate web pages in Safari, there's plenty of situations in Apple's first party apps in iOS where pinch to zoom is purely a zoom thing. In any case, the rotation thing is also just pretty rudimentary trigonometry/linear algebra.

Safari lets you drag and zoom so it’s still more than just a zoom function. Also, Boxed already replied by complaining about rotation in the Map app imagine the hate if Safari did let you rotate. Removing features is just as critical for UI design as adding them.

I agree that Safari would be much worse if it allowed rotation, I think most of the places where Apple currently allow rotation (such as in the photos or files apps) would be better if rotation wasn't allowed, but we're not discussing my taste or yours in UIs here.

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#456

Post by DiggyJohnson » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 4:21 PM UTC

mort96 wrote: post #454

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if none of the workers produce innovative work that the firm can patent, then the firm might fail and > the individual who does the invention gets a normal salary which they would've gotten anywhere doing anything may no longer be true.

Frankly, I have no idea what your point is. Clearly patents aren't enriching the inventor of the thing being patented, and that's that.

But they are, even if it's not as direct as you like. The company/inventor is the patent holder, which benefits the inventor either directly or indirectly.

You're making it out like the individuals do not benefit from company's success. I'm saying that's not true, the continued existence of the company is a benefit to the individual.

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#457

Post by taeric » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 4:24 PM UTC

caminante wrote: post #220

taeric wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorta? Compulsive licensing is something that only exists in a very narrow market for copyright material. Pretty sure it does not exist at all for patents. You can argue that it is somewhat moot here, as Apple was not showing any willingness to negotiate. But the post above is somewhat accurate, in that there is no guarantee that negotiations will end in a license.

> But the post above is somewhat accurate, in that there is no guarantee that negotiations will end in a license. Why is that revelation "wild?" Imagine saying, > It’s so wild that [Bernie] is allowed to refuse to [allow Bob] to [rent Bernie's spare bedroom]. putting aside the fact that [Bob] doesn't even want to rent from [Bernie] as applied to the situation here with the watches! :-)

I think it is fair to argue against it, to a large extent. However, patents are techniques and methods to do something. This would almost be akin to a sport team getting exclusive use of a play because they registered their playbook first. Which, yes, sounds "wild."

I, sadly, don't know all of the details in this case. But with patents, remember that you don't even have to show that "Bob" even knew of the existence of "Bernie." They could have come to the same general techniques completely independently, but because they were not "first to file," they cannot use them.

(Obviously, if I am wrong on the above, please correct me.)

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#458

Post by mort96 » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 4:56 PM UTC

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #456

mort96 wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly, I have no idea what your point is. Clearly patents aren't enriching the inventor of the thing being patented, and that's that.

But they are, even if it's not as direct as you like. The company/inventor is the patent holder, which benefits the inventor either directly or indirectly. You're making it out like the individuals do not benefit from company's success. I'm saying that's not true, the continued existence of the company is a benefit to the individual.

The individual benefits a teeny tiny little bit from the company's success, but the individual is not getting rich from it. The idea that the inventor is significantly enriched by the patent system is a fantasy; the reality is that the inventor maybe has a slightly higher salary than they otherwise would, while the investors and executives are enriched. I don't know how many times I need to say this before it sinks in.

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#459

Post by pests » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 6:02 PM UTC

rickdeckard wrote: post #445

dnissley wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be noted that we're taking Masimo at their word here -- scummy as described, yes, but for all we know things may have actually gone another way: they may have tried to hold Apple over a barrel, may not have actually revealed all that much, etc.

Not really. All of this is confirmed: - It's agreed by both sides that meetings took place in 2013 and subsequently a confidentiality agreement was made. - Within the same year Apple hired Masimo's Chief Medical Officer and EVP for Medical Affairs, along with additional staff. - They developed and integrated the IP of Masimo into a commercial product. - A judge ruled that Apple infringed patents of Masimo [1]. There'…

Besides the patent infringement, I see no issue with them hiring key employees and trying to recreate the technology.

If Apple, or some other company, approached you to rebuild what you built at your current company, for a lot more money - are you really telling me you're going to say no and that's the moral thing to do?

Why are you trying to protect a company, a fictional entity, over the employees that make it up?

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#460

Post by henry2023 » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 6:05 PM UTC

rickdeckard wrote: post #376

caslon wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it scummy? Hiring people to produce goods or services and compensating them based on the value of their knowledge and abilities is sort of the entire value pitch of capitalism, and it's unlikely anyone would have moved over to Apple if the compensation wasn't more worthwhile to them.

They attempted to acquire a specific tech of Masimo, but changed their approach to hiring key resources of it instead of partnering with the company (or acquiring (parts of) it). The aftermath is this lawsuit, which illustrates that Apple needed their hires to build something that was already existing in Masimo and would have been subject of that partnership. I'm sure this "brainrape" strategy often works flawlessly,…

Maybe the value has never been held on intelectual property but on the people who develop the technology. This is good for the workers while being bad for the capitalists.